The Webcomic Overlook #96: Jack

Inevitably people ask me, “I you hate a webcomic so much, why don’t you read something else and leave this poor comic alone?” The question is usually phrased less fluently, and the spelling is usually more atrocious, but that’s the gist of it. The answer to that question is rather complex. I, in fact, wrote an entire essay on it, cover such things as increased readership, a verbalization of what to look for, and, my favorite, revenge.

There’s one other reason that I didn’t cover in my essay: the triple-dog double dare.

Not too long ago, a loyal reader of The Webcomic Overlook suggested that I ransom my mental sanity by actually reading and reviewing Jack. I won’t reveal his name, but he does write a comic I like where a green haired girl runs around totally starkers. (And it’s pretty good, too … surprisingly.) This reader was quite likely Lucifer himself. I swear I smelled the faintest whiff of brimstone as I was reading his e-mail.

However, against my better judgment, I decided to take him up on this challenge. To quote Nathan Rabin: “I was motivated by the purest, most powerful impulse known to man: the need to prove myself intellectually to an anonymous stranger on the Internet.” So I did some stretches, a couple deep breaths as prescribed by my sexy lady trainer on the Wii Fit, and plunged into the world of Jack.

The following is a sordid recollection of what happened next.

WARNING: The content below is definitely not kid-friendly, and is most likely not safe for work. Let’s just say if you click on any of the links, and your boss decides to send you straight to a company licensed psychiatrist, then it was your own damn fault.

The comic, written by David Hopkins, has evolved to be the webcomic shorthand for the worst comic ever. When I hinted that I was reviewing one of the most awful comics in history, a few of you correctly guessed that the comic in question was Jack. The entire oeuvre is daunting for even the most ironclad of stomachs. Before going on hiatus, Reconstructing Comics had considered mocking it, yet the content was so maddeningly distasteful that she opted to joke about a less offensive (yet still terrible) comic with the same title. (“Originally I intended to tackle the “famous” Jack but reading the archives was like pouring boiling lead directly into my brain, painful and confusing….”) Posting Jack is right up there with goatse.cx and Two Girls One Cup as really nasty tricks you spring on your Facebook friends. Even furries likes to pretend that this webcomic does not exist.

Still, Jack has its defenders. Among its staunchest are the commentors on The Webcomic List. Here’s a smattering of testimonials:

“This comic made me cry, which is an accomplishment since I don’t really cry except for really REALLY sad movies.”

“Its astonishing with the story line and how he draws characters in the dark. Its horrific beyond anything I’ve ever read, and quite shocking. This comic really inspried me to start drawing furries because his work I noticed was very detailed.”

“One of the best comics, I have ever read.”

“I got hooked on the whole thing and was almost in shock when I reached the middle of a story only to find out that was as far as the author had got so far. Excellent artwork, great story..”

I must be reading a different Jack, because the one I read is goddamn revolting. It is the HMS Abomination setting sail upon the Sea of Loathesomeness. I want to rip my brain out of my skull and stomp out the memory of ever having read the epic repulsiveness that is Jack.

Jack, the star of the webcomic, a large, brooding fellow who wears a big burlap sack. He looks like 90’s video game hero Jazz Jackrabbit if he were rolled around in the dryer for too long. He also lives in Hell, one that is populated exclusively by furries (save one).

The immortal, multitasking rabbit has two main jobs. First of all, he serves as his universe’s Grim Reaper. As per the typical Reaper modus operandi, he neither inflects death nor prevents it. Once someone shuffs the mortal coil — and in the world of Jack, this is usually through the most violent means possible — our Big Green Carpet Sample shows up, often with a forlorn expression usually reserved for sad unicorn posters. He then accompanies them to their not-so-final destinations. (The Jack theology allows for both a way out of Hell and reincarnation, which a surprising amount of characters opt for. Despite the Judeo-Christian trappings, Jack‘s world is really based on the Church of Pseudo-Bullshit.) Being the Grip Reaper comes with perks, by the way: despite being doomed to Hell, Jack enjoys a comfortable rapport with angelic beings.

Jack’s second job is as a sin. In the world of Jack, the Cardinal Sins (a.k.a. The seven deadly sins) are anthropomorphized. It turns out they were all people who were unspeakably terrible in the world of the living and must now spend eternity wallowing in their sin and tormenting others guilty of the same sin. Which, frankly, is pretty much living the good life in Hell. Jack is the sin of Wrath. How the personification of anger scores the Grim Reaper job, which I imagine demands some people skills, is never explained. Of course, this is a universe where God is a “whimsical” (i.e., insufferable) little sheep who prances around like Alanis Morrissette in Dogma … which probably explains why a lot of the rules regarding the afterlife make absolutely no sense.

(I seriously doubt that John the Baptist implied that God was an imbecile when he called Jesus the Lamb of God , but who knows?)

Naturally, as the hero of his comic, Jack is portrayed as sympathetic. As a result, he’s largely antagonistic toward his fellow sins — which, mind you, are pretty much only doing their jobs when they’re wallowing in their perdition. On the other hand, Jack, despite looking like a pile of seaweed, is the object of affection of at least two angels. Farrago, in particular, takes a keen interest in trying to reform Jack into heaven by exposing him to some long lost memories. (Just like a dame to try to change us men, amirite guys?) This serves two purposes. First, you achieve redemption by acknowledging that the bad things you did in life were wrong, and by completing that step you get to at least go to Purgatory. Second, like Superman, memory blocks can be manipulated via kissing… so Farrago had an easy excuse to get some quality time with her mangy hero.

I should mention that one of Jack’s flashback memories did throw me for a loop. Jack is apparently the Adam of the furry race. He’s a genetic creation of human scientists, created some time before mankind mysteriously disappeared. That was a pretty original twist to a webcomic that’s basically one giant morality play. Sure, Hopkins totally ripped the idea off the Planet of the Apes, but turning the first furry into both the Grim Reaper and a sin?

Pretty sneaky, sis.

I can understand why Jack doesn’t like hanging around the sins, since they’re all pretty gross. Drip (a.k.a., the sin of Lust) is probably the worst, what with his habit of laughing and defecating at the same time. Also, he’s often depicted with a bloody and shriveled up member, and apparently no one in Hell makes pants his size. There are other sins: Vince (Greed) gets to run some sort of empire; Bob and Lisa (Gluttony) sneak into the mortal plane to gobble up unsuspecting victims; and Kane (Envy) is a filthy, filthy human. (Boo!) Drip gets all the ink, though — the Joker to Jack’s Batman, only much, much lamer and more rapey.

However, the good guys are hardly the National Honors Society, either. For some reason, a mentally challenged little brat called Fnar stars in a good number of the stories. My guess is someone out there finds the guy and his babbling about peeing his pants to be cute. Me, I find the the beady-eyed little bastard the very definition of “odious comic relief.”

(Upon further reflection, a huge portion — not all, but a sizable amount — of my distaste toward Fnar is due to his eyes. In a later storyline, Fnar’s eyes get big and dewey, and he appears far less creepy. Ironically, this only happens after he’s molested by his dad. A fountain of joy, Jack is.)

Outside of the “mythos” stories, Hopkins includes unconnected tales about people in the world of the living who have to deal with death. The remind me of those cheap, badly acted 1980’s horror anthology series that used to air on HBO. All the characters are extremely one-dimensional. The good guys are righteous Mary Sues. They also tend to spend a lot of their timecrying in the most melodramatic fashion imaginable. On the other hand, the bad guys have their villiany ramped up on ludicrous levels. In one case, a doctor is not only sexually molesting his child patients, he also murders them, makes it look like an illness, and blackmails his assistant by refusing to cure his cancer-stricken wife unless he followed along. Man, Frank Miller would write that off as being too hokey.

These self-contained tales are also very, very tedious. One particularly painful 81 page story (which was also some sort of Better Days crossover) treated us to a bunch of characters getting offed one by one by hordes of aliens. Yes, despite everything else in Jack somewhat resembling the modern day, Hopkins takes an ill-advised foray into Starship Troopers territory. Slowly but surely, my braincells began to shut down. Other story arcs may be worse from a standpoint of taste, but it’s particularly excruciating to have to follow a bunch of nobodies who have no impact on any further story arcs.

Compounding the problem is that Jack is 1,325 pages long. Let me tell you, dear reader, that is a whole lot of crap to read through. A. LOT. OF. CRAP. More than once, I cursed my lot after finishing a chapter, only to have a longer, more turgid chapter waiting for me up ahead. Jack is the Bataan Death March of webcomics.

Frankly, I’d like the see this dialogue show up in the mouth of a serial killer on CSI: New York some day. Just to see if Gary Sinise can hold a straight face through the entire exchange.

Now, when you’re doing something Hell themed, it only makes sense to include tons of gratuitously violent imagery. Heironymous Bosch did it. Dante Alighieri did it. And Metalocalypse does a pretty kick ass parody of how metal bands do it. David Hopkins also does it. So it sorta makes sense for him to indulge in some gruesome flights of fancy. Hopkins, however, has no clue how to reconcile his macabre imagery with his preachiness.

The violence is shamelessly pornographic. (And also regular pornographic, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves here.) Characters get mutilated in elaborate fashion. We get extended scenes where characters plea for mercy before they’re shot in the head. On one hand, Hopkins moralizes on how he’s only showing gruesome fates for serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, and hypocrites. On the other hand, he really knows that people are tuning in for the gratuitous violence, and he’s more than happy to deliver. By the time he gets to the conclusion — which is usually, “The guy was a creep so he got what he deserved” — you sorta gotta wonder whether the guy who spent pages drawing mutilations for the masses might, deep down, be siding with the dude suspended on his own intestines. (Also undermining any effort at being “dark”: everyone laughably looks like a badly drawn Tiny Toons reject.)

It’s no surprise, then, that Jack stories rank among the most repellent webcomic stories ever written. Everybody has a Jack story they hate. For some, it’s the comic about Columbine incident, which ends when a guy called the “NRA Preacher” (so Heaven is Libertarian, huh?) shoots the killer in the head, after which we are treated to a triumphant final panel where the killer is mercilessly sodomized. (Concluding tagline: “To be dedicated to the idea that everyone eventually gets what they earn.”) For others, it’s the suicide bomber story, a mystery where we have to sit the perverse secrets of five different people until we find out who the killer is. (SPOILER! It’s the Muslim pretending to be a peaceable refugee. Never trust those foreign bastards.) Yet, for others, it’s the one about a killer who not only mutilates a poor closeted lesbian, but also did quite a number on his own John Thomas.

But the one that gets me most is “Games We Play in Hell,” or, as I like to call it, the Rape Arena. It’s the kind of story where Hopkins is just daring us to be offended. (Or, more likely, turned on.) We start off on a good note, where our heroine, Silverblue, has breakfast, after which she rapes and kills a prisoner. Then she jacks off a huge demigod to get him in a good mood. After which she is then the victim of tentacle rape.

Ah, but we’re only getting started. It turns out that there’s a huge arena in the middle of Hell where the participants must perform for Vince, the Sin of Greed. Want to guess what happens there?

(By the way, I suppose you can argue that the Rape Arena is Hell for the competitors. But it’s depicted as a spectator sport, where the stands are packed. If your skeezy lifestyle doomed you to Hell, how is watching a Rape Arena any sort of punishment?)

So is Jack the worst webcomic of all time?

Perhaps it’s the Stockholm Syndrome kicking in. Perhaps it’s because I’m hesitant to say that Jack is ever number one in anything, including at being terrible. Don’t get me wrong. Jack is awful, awful, AWFUL. I fully understand how the comic mentally fatigued and However, some of the stories, like “Those That Run,” were pretty tolerable … despite featuring a bunch of ghosts who try to look up a little girl’s skirt and a plot where people fly around like it was Dragonball Z. (Yes, I understand that’s analogous to saying leprosy is pretty tolerable if it wasn’t for all your limbs falling off. Still.) Hopkins is a far better storyteller when he isn’t trying to be edgy or plotting out the Tales from the Darkside episode of the day.

Besides, I think the Jack character himself isn’t that bad. (Checking… yes. Definitely Stockholm Syndrome.) Imagine this theoretical scenario: a murderous and particularly hirsute and lupine serial killer who ripped off his crotchfruits has a gun shoved up my ass, and he demands an answer as to which character I’d rather spend all of eternity with: Jack from Jack or Fisk from Better Days (reviewed here). For me, it’s Jack every time. Hopkins actually succeeded in making him an interesting character, with a backstory worth exploring. He is, at last, not an infallible John Galt. Jack deserves better than the comic he was doomed to appear in.*

My heart hurt for you as I read this. I even clicked on a few links, much to my regret. The quotes from the readers who like this steaming drivel boggle my mind. You, sir, are a humanitarian. We have all been warned.

If I had to write everything problematic with Jack, I’d probably have to release a hardback or something. Oddly enough, the World Trade Center stuff curiously seems less offensive when compared a lot of other mentally scarring things you’ll find in Jack. :)

Yeah, I was only thinking about it while on the subject of furries doing things they have no reason to be doing. Following human religions is nothing compared to dying in the WTC attacks, and since that’s the sort of comic we’re dealing with, I quit thinking about it. ;p

First, I must say, I agree with 90% of what you wrote. The author is deeply disturbed, and more than half of the story is worth skipping. However, I’m not ashamed to say I’ll keep reading updates of Jack. Why? To find out what brick-shitting-twist the author pulls off at the end when Jack’s past is revealed.

I mean from what I gathered after reading the 1,000+ pages of the webcomic, Jack was the original furry, Jill (his love) was killed, they couldn’t bring her back so Jack went apeshit and either turned all the humans into furries or killed off all the humans on earth therefore earning the title of Wrath.

How he’ll manage to explain either of those scenarios will be something worth reading.

While I have enjoyed Jack (at least most of it) quite a bit, I don’t think anyone can deny that the comic is very difficult for most folks to enjoy. The art is not that good, although I personally never minded it. I like what Dave is trying to do with his art, but unfortunately he is pretty awful at it, and is outclassed in drawing skill by many of his own fans.

The writing is definitely very contrived and he has a habit of using mouthpiece characters with little distinctive personality, if any. I noticed this much more when rereading the comic, when the shock of reading it the first time wore off.

An important thing to understand, is that it really isn’t aimed at a big audience. Dave Hopkins is a man who’s dealt with his own demons quite a lot, who admitted to having cut himself at one point or another in his life, due to serious emotional problems he was going through. I think he is a very odd man who has been able to become a much healthy and happier person by channeling many of his negative feelings into his work, almost like a sort of artistic therapy. As such, I think it definitely takes a kind of messed-up mind to enjoy the series.

When I first found it, years ago, I was in a pretty bad place, so to speak. I wouldn’t say I liked Jack at first, but I was definitely drawn in by the extreme violence and the shock value of the story in the second chapter (Which follows a young boy who shoots up his school). THe third chapter, however, was a much different story; a tragic romance between a man and his sick wife. It’s extremely cheesy to be sure, and Dave’s art is nothing to boast about, but I loved it nevertheless, and I was an avid fan for over three years before I finally found myself growing out of it.

TLDR: Jack is pretty poorly done in just about every way, but everything has it’s place in the world.

I’ll give you that it’s morally ham-handed and a bit squicky, but for what its worth, its not so bad. There’s a mythos there, and you have to admit that it’s not easy to link stories together (Characters from one arc tend to appear in another. I’ve wondered about how a web of relations would look like for this comic).

Dave comes from a school of thought/camp of Iconoclastic cartoonists who, frankly, aren’t concerned with perfectionist artwork. He enjoys shocking and nauseating his readers, whether with his artwork or with his stories. He probably wouldn’t want to pretty it up anymore than he has to. (Although his latest few strips are quite well-rendered compared to his old work. Art evolves, you know).

I suppose the main reason for this is that Dave probably wasn’t as strong an artist back then as he is now. Many cartoonists start their comics as a way to practice and have a little fun. If they revolt you, that’s fine, they’re still learning.

Sure! See the banner for this site? It’s completely hand drawn. It’s at least more intelligible than most of “Jack.”

And I’m afraid you’ve got me on the writing. I haven’t written a webcomic yet. However, I will direct you to pretty much every other webcomic reviewed on this site. Each and every single one of them has a better storyline than “Jack.”

Another point – you are not paid commissions by fans for original artwork, and you do not have a popular website. I’ve read plenty of awful comics and awful webcomics, but I don’t spend time examining them in great detail: “And this is how much PR0NQUEST sucks. Let’s look a little closer.”

Face it, the only reason you take on popular comics such as these is to drive more traffic to your website. Even a well-established publication like CRACKED can’t get much attention bashing actual bad comics, and you’d have to work very hard to get as much attention as CRACKED did for mocking the obscurities they chose to satirize.

With JACK, your attention is already built in because it’s a site with an established following and millions of hits. You wouldn’t get nearly as much attention going after obscurities.

I offer to you that it is this website, not Hopkins’ that is awful, if not for the fact that you can’t back up your complaints and that you make things up when you can’t add anything further.

JACK is actually one of the most complex and interesting comics I’ve ever read. The only thought I’ve encountered while viewing your site is “who the fuck is this guy?”

It’s one thing to express a dislike of something, but focusing this much on a comic that you supposedly hate suggests jealousy (especially since that you are not getting paid anything for this blog).

It is frequently referenced and linked to by other cartoonists (including somewhat mainstream cartoonists), who sometimes draw its characters into their own strips.

Also, the comic was originally hosted on Keenspace before moving to its current server, so you can’t use one site’s estimation of the new server’s hits to estimate its popularity.

Wikipedia consensus also determined the site to be notable, which is why it still has an article. And, as stated, it gets more attention than your site does, so you obviously needed it to drive attention to yourself.

I made no attention of advertising. I simply stated that you really wish for attention, and you seek it from attacking websites that get more traffic than your site does.

Still invalid. Just because some people draw about it doesn’t mean it’s popular at all. There are webcomics out there that have fewer than 500 readers yet still have fan art sections.

Also I like how you mentioned “somewhat mainstream cartoonists” without naming names. I’m guessing because those “somewhat mainstream cartoonists” are not that at all… just people like you and me who happen to have a website and who draw things. I guess if I draw “Jack” art on this site, you can claim that a “somewhat mainstream blog” put Jack art on its site, hmm?

Like I’ve said before, I wrote this review was that I read Jack, found it to be an awful, unreadable piece of garbage, and its unique sense of badness inspired me to write a review telling everyone how bad it is.

You keep saying, “The only reason you wrote this is to get attention,” yet you have no proof beyond the fact that I wrote this piece. That’s ridiculous. That assertion can be easily disproved by the fact that a) I have written many more positive reviews than negative reviews, and b) a lot of the subjects of both the positive reviews and negative reviews have higher readerships than Jack. I could’ve spent time reading a much more popular webcomic, like say Questionable Content, if I really wanted to get the readership.

No, you’re just ignoring the irrevocable truth at the heart of the matter: Jack is an awful, awful webcomic, and I wrote this review because the comic is bad.

The fact that it was repeatedly nominated for — and won — awards for best comic, best story, best art, etc. prove you wrong.

Yes. For the Webcomic Cartoonists Choice Awards. Notoriously one of the most superfluous awards ever given. Tell you what? I’m going to go ahead and give Jack the Webcomic Ovelook Award for Best Webcomic of the Decade. Oddly enough, it is worth exactly as much as winning something in the WCCAs.

The fact that it his highly ranked by fans on websites such as “Top Webcomics” proves you wrong.

I hope to God you’re not using the “Top Webcomics” argument. Those have never been an good indication of what’s popular or not. It only shows how effective the creator is of increasing his vote. For example: most read webcomics today are xkcd, Cyanide & Happiness, and Penny Arcade. Top 3 of TopWebcomics.com? The Phoenix Requiem, Evil Diva, and Two Kind. Conclusion? Top Webcomics is as useful as the WCCA awards.

The fairly mainstream cartoonist I referred to was Thomas K. Dye, the creator of “Newshounds”, who is one of the better known webcomics authors out there.

Who the hell is Thomas K. Dye?

I honestly believe that the artwork and writing on this site is of a far lower quality than “Jack”.

I just skimmed through this and caught the Frank Miller remark – really? You’re saying that you’re a better writer than Frank Miller, often praised as one of the best writers in the comics industry?

So you go on my site, don’t read the article, and accuse me of writing a negative review just because I want the page views? At no point did you actually read the review? You just “skimmed” it?

Then you post on my comment board and question the integrity of my review as a shallow attempt to get page views? It occurs to me that it didn’t matter what I wrote; you were going to get all in my grill anyway.

So really, why should I believe you at all when your whole intention of posting here was never based on the actual review?

Hi. Thanks for ignoring the actual point. Michael Moore would be proud.

“Newshounds” has been running since 1997 – and receives more hits than your site. You can’t possibly claim not to have at least heard of it. At the very least, you might have noticed Dye’s association with Dana Simpson, the author of “Ozy and Millie” – which is, as far as I know, the only webcomic to be mentioned in a Trivial Pursuit question. Both “Ozy and Millie” and “Newshounds” have appeared in collections from “Attitude” compiling the best alternative comics (this series also featured Keith Knight and Aaron McGruder – who were syndicated in major newspapers). Obviously, these cartoonists are mainstream. Your having heard of them means absolutely nothing, considering that I have never heard of you.

Your bashing WCCA means absolutely nothing, either, considering your hopeless jealousy, and the fact that I have heard of WCCA more than I have heard of you. And it’s beside the point. You asked for proof of popularity. The fact that something won an award shows that it is, in fact, popular. The fact that the ‘something’ in question was nominated for several other awards, proves popularity, which is all you’ve asked for.

I read enough of your review to determine that it was crap. I read more of your review than you read of “Jack”.

Seriously, who are you? I’m still scratching my head about this. Because you seem to know nothing of websites that generate more traffic – and actual income – than your site – and yet you’ve either never heard of them, determined that they’re not popular, or that they’re crap.

Man, you’re going to drag Michael Moore into this too? You’re seriously bringing down the good names of decent Republicans.

And, just a tip, everything you said about Thomas K Dye? That STILL doesn’t make him anywhere close to being a”fairly mainstream cartoonist.” Your argument seems to be based around “he appeared in books that featured more famous people.” You do understand the concept of anthologies, right? Feature a few known artists, then fill it up with a bunch of unknowns because that’s where you get the exposure.

But beyond all that, excuse me if I still don’t buy your “You only wrote a bad review because you’re jealous and you want people to read your site” argument. That’s the only thing I really am taking issue with here, and all your bogus proof on how Jack is so popular does nothing to disavow that.

Because, when you boil down to it, here’s how your logic system works. Agrees with you: truly a brave an honest individual. Disagrees with you: someone who is mad jealous and is only writing this because he wants page views. That’s like the logic of a 6 year old.

EXACTLY! Which proves my point that I’m not doing this for the page views. Jack is like my 96th review out of 2 years of running this site. You figure at that point, I should know that giving webcomics a good or bad review does nothing to help my page count.

Hence, I didn’t give Jack a negative review to drive in readers. Driving readers has never been the reason I’ve run this blog.

Anyway hits really mean absolutely nothing since over half of those people do not come back to the comic.
Ashley Simpson is a bad musical artist but shes really popular, would you argue with me that since shes popular it means that shes really good as what she does? Just because alot of people view a comic it does not make it a good comic.

This site would not get any hits at all if this reviewer wasn’t a complete moron and tried to take on artists that are more successful and talented than he is.

Look at the crowd scene in the latest JACK strip. If David Hopkins were really as bad an artist as this moron writer claims, Hopkins would not be able to draw that many extras. The writer of this piece can’t draw as densely detailed a strip as Hopkins.

Saying that JACK is merely a shock comic is nonsense. Hopkins draws what exists in life, and in a possible version of Hell. If you are shocked by the content of a comic set in Hell, then why did you choose to read a comic set in Hell, if you are so offended by what most likely goes on in Hell?

None of the complaints in this “review” make sense, nor do the comments by people backing up this lame assmonkey who is jealous of the fact that no one wants to look at his lame drawings and bitchings about comics that are far more popular than his own.

Wait, scratch that. No one other than El Santo reads this page. All of the supporting comments are made by El Santo himself! He wants to believe he has people backing him up when, in fact, he is the only person with such a lunatic mind.

The Webcomic Overlook has 438 hits. That’s one person every once in a blue moon.

And if the author of this piece and his comment-box multiple personalities still believe that this review wasn’t written for the additional attention received from bashing a successful comic strip, they are delusional.

It’s 2014. Jack is still garbage. Readership of the site has boomed. El Santo – if ever (whichever) of your madcap conspiracy theories is true – is one of the most polite people on the whole damn Internet. And just *who* are you?

Your arguments stating “They’re better at drawing than you, they’re better at writing than you” mean NOTHING in the long run of things. For example, I’m a terrible singer. Miley Cyrus sings better than me. However, Miley Cyrus still still anything but good.
In the same line, not, I probably couldn’t draw a better web-comic than Jack. However, from reading brief bits of it, that doesn’t make it good. Its ridiculously hard to figure out whats going on in some panels, and the content itself (especially the sexual content) disgusts me. If you like it, fine, but don’t get on someone’s case for disliking it. To call the writer an attention whore when they clearly are not (you’re “420 total hits” argument is really working against you, not for you, here), tell them they’re a terrible web-comic writer and drawer when thats completely besides the point (they write a BLOG. Does it matter how well they can draw? Or write dialogue?), and cite that “people do like it! So there!” (who cares? Referring back to the above example, Miley Cyrus is currently Top 40 material. Meaning people like her. She’s still shit) simply makes you out to be a stubborn troll who can’t handle the fact that someone disagrees with you. Seriously, keep reading Jack if you love it so much, but realize that with out-there artwork like this (which one could possibly get over if the plot was outstanding) and a controversial plotline at best, a lot of people are not going to agree with you.

Most people do not like Miley Cyrus. They bought the album because it was heavily advertised. “Jack” does not have the advertising that Miley Cyrus has. There are less popular comics out there that are better advertised.

This review made me uncomfortable with the pages there. I pratically scrolled passed them to just read the view most of the time. I felt so bad for you being forced to read the whole thing for the sake of your review. As usual you found something positive to say about a comic despite all its flaws. I would only hope to be so kind to something like this.

This review is made better by the comments below it. I like the part where one individual made the claim that no one visits this site and all comments and views were made by alone.

I would invite this poor creature of the internet to consider that they too may be a figment created by El Santo. Their entire world exists as a piece of his imagination in order to be the voice of objectivity within his mind. It’s possible that this review itself does not exist and all is a piece of El Santo’s insane and lonely mind. If you come to a logical conclusion that you are not El Santo then I would ask why you are here talking to El Santo, would it not be better to leave this lonely attention starved fool of a reviewer to continue talking to himself in his own personal Hell? There is no other reason to be here if you yourself are not El Santo and all who view here are El Santo as well. Join us, we are all one with El Santo!

Hey guys,
Now, I’m not gonna do what Issac or (sorry for saying this) El Santo is doing, and shove my opinion down your throats. But im going to honestly say right now, I like Jack. I can honestly see that 65% of you are going to stop reading now and instantly attack my opinion, but for the remaining ones, just hear me out. I can see why alot of you dislike it. In places the art is shoddy, plot line monotonous and a distinct lack of drama where drama should be in abundance. However, if you look at the underlying themes, you may find what some people think to be the redemption of “Jack”. It is an writer’s portrayal about what happens when you pass on, how you will be judged, what happens in Heaven/Hell. It’s characters are *ahem* interesting (especially in the case of Drip) but fitting for their purpose. Another theme that is centred on seems to be redemption, particularly Jack’s dare I say struggle to remember his sins and repent for them. And although I like it, I can still freely admit that Jack is graphically overbearing, especially in the cases of the violence and sexual exploits. So yeah, shoot me for having an opinion in favour of this, but I have done one better than some of the people who have reviewed this and given an balanced argument. Or at least attempted too.

So yeah, like most webcomics, “Jack” has its ups and its downs. And although more people seemed to hate it more than like it (kinda like Marmite in that respect) it doesnt mean people should go “This is CRAP!!! I h8, there4 u must h8!” or “OMG!! I <3 this, any1 who doesn't should DIE!!" (For anyone who is now questioning my intelligence, dont, it was an representation of a stereotypical fangirl/fanboy response and a hater, who in both cases seem only to care about there opinion and no-one elses) For anyone new to this, check out Jack if you dont mind furry, gratuitous violence & sex scenes and mind-warping plot lines. You might like, you might not. Why not take a look for yourself.
Signing off here,
Ira

You may have a point but I get the feeling you didn’t read the review itself. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I’m confused on what you mean when you say it’s trying to portray what happens when you pass through heaven or Hell because nothing in Jack seems to correspond with any religious beliefs at all except that Heaven is pretty nice and Hell is pretty bad. What are these secret underlying themes that have already not bee explained in this review?

It sounds like you expect everyone here to act idiotic and unfairly toward this comic but we have only seen such action on the part of its supporters and I’m sure anyone with a rational word in support of this comic will not be attacked in the way you describe.
Let me know that you’re not just another person who came in here, saw the one star, and instantly began showing your support for the comic without hearing why it got one star.

You have a fair point… It could just be me looking into things already there. Ill be honest and say that ive read the whole comic, so I do sorta know what im on about and why some people like/dislike it strongly. And by underlying themes, I doubt ive discovered anything someone else already has. I was more trying to point out that a positive thing (hell, probably “Jack”‘s only one) is that it shows that redemption IS possible, providing that you are able to admit and atone for your wrongdoings. It also seems to show that life is not fair, and that bad things do in fact happen to good people and vice versa. Evidence for this can be shown through Jack’s struggle to remember, and for the second point:
1) Fnar, an innocent, ending up in hell, and the “meeting” with his father Drip
2) Drip seemingly getting away with anything and everything he does, although this could be the same with other sins, sans Jack and Sloth (who does practically nothing except for the one cut-scene he/she appears in.)
3) Several of the side-stories do correspond with this, but if you’ve read this, you probably already know.
I guess your right in my low opinion on fans/haters, its just in my experience that when one represents an opinion, its very much fueled by their own personal views and very little evidence to back up what they are saying to be true. Trying to have a logical conversation with said people is like “trying to break a brick wall with your head” as the saying goes. I will admit, several people do have genuine opinions, even El Santo does seem to start out with a fair and backed up with evidence (if not “slightly” bias) opinion. However, when challenged, he (she?) quickly degrades into little more than juvinile bickering in an attempt to make others see his/her point.

Im not sure what you have to say about Jack, apart from you didnt seem to like it. Thats an fair opinion, and I respect it Grey, providing you will respect mine. But you cant honestly say that what im saying, if not for this case, isn’t at least partially true?? And yes, ill agree its mostly from the supporters. I hope ive managed to prove hat im not just some person rebelling against a low review for the sake of it. I feel the review was unfair, but hey, thats probably just my opinion. Let me know what you think,
Signing off here,
Ira

I just wanted to address the whole “juvenile bickering” issue. I like to keep these comment boards open for those who disagree with my opinions. They are opinions, after all.

However, I take the defensive when the remarks are addressed regarding my own site. So, if you scroll above and check out the most heated arguments, they’re about The Webcomic Overlook itself, not about Jack. That’s the moment when I feel free to go ahead and get all juvenile. It’s OK to say, “Jack is great because….” But the minute someone says, “You only reviewed Jack because you’re mad jealous and you’re just a fame whore,” well, that’s when fight back.

My philosophy is this: I pretty much said all I needed to say in the 2,000 words of the review, and to say anything more would come off as defensive or stubborn or, as you said, “Shoving my opinion down your throat.” So I’ll let everyone else make their own points in peace. Sure, it can come off as not backing things up … but, like I said, I already said my piece.

Anyway, thanks for your comments. Despite our differing opinions on Jack, it’s commentors like you that I enjoy having on my site.

Hello,
Yeah, once again im going to re-inforce that i’m not against anyones opinion, you are allowed to say what you want to say. Im just pointing out that you spoke very derogetary of the comic, when I infact found it to be an rather enjoyable.

But otherwise, I can see your point. Their is an incredible amount of bitching on this thread alone about either an extreme opinion, or as you pointed out, your site. I honestly wouldn’t be able to tolerate it… Its one thing to have an opinion, but to have one driven only by “fangirlisn” really grates my nerves. Does this happen on your other threads? If so, i’m glad i’m not running this site like you are. Thank you for respecting my opinion, and I do hope i’ve not made it bias, or overly so anyway. But yeah, I felt you really underpreciated it and, given time, could actually realise some of what i’ve said to be true.
Signing off here,
Ira

The world doesn’t work like in “Internet land” where everyone gets pissed off by a low-budget independent comic that they personally do not enjoy, and write overlong diatribes ragging on another artist for expressing something that is personal to them, but not to other people.

In the real world, if someone reads your comic and doesn’t like it, they don’t tell you to your face that they’re horrible artists. They say that they personally did not enjoy it. Because most people in this world are not ASSHOLES.

The kind of responses you make to me would get you a punch in the mouth from any other person. Luckily, though, you are speaking to a peaceful man from the sanctity of your Internet keyboard. Try acting like a dickhead in the real world and see where it gets you.

You do realize that that is self-defeating hypocrisy you posted just there. What are you? We’re all in Internet land right now. And, actually, most people really *are* A-holes. Your anti-cynicism is special. Yeah … you’re special.

Look, I’m pathetic too! I’m venting out my emotions on some fop on the web I don’t know! I know you’re not crazy enough to respond to this after 4 years! Unless you *are* that pathetic … in that case, I’ll send you a recipe on rosemary cookies.

I don’t really think that El Santo is a fame whore. I do think it’s a ridiculously low blow to insult someone else’s art style because they personally do not like it.

I’m not offended by or angry over anything. But the point still stands that I do not believe that this reviewer knows anything about working for years on a low-budget, personal project that he knows will only appeal to a select audience. My comments here are in response to the idea that El Santo is so angry over a comic that he personally doesn’t like that he’s going to write a pissed off diatribe bickering over menial details and taking little things out of context in an attempt to make a point.

Only the Internet makes reviews like this possible. No one ever wrote reviews like this about “Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary”.

The art, particularly the beginning art, requires a reader to train their eyes to find what line belongs to what character. Almost anyone draws Jack better than early H. style, including later H. … Or maybe its just that my eyes got trained.

Seriously dude, calm the hell down. I’m a big fan of the “Jack” comic and I will tell you right now that you are making every single one of the comic’s fans look like foaming at the mouth idiots. Even as a huge fan of Dave’s work, I do not believe the comic to be perfect (as you seem to), but I do find it thought invoking and will continue to read it as long as he continues to post.

I don’t know what review you read, but I certainly didn’t see it as being an internet troll’s attempt at butthurt fame.You seem convinced that it is and it really isn’t. If he wanted that, it would have been a lot easier to go to the comic’s website, post shitty comments on the forum with a link to his blog attached and just wait for the angry fans to roll in and up his viewer counter.

Also, to essentially say that insulting/not liking someone’s particular art style is a “low blow” seems stupid to me. It would be like me saying “Wow, Dali sure knows what he’s doing with those elephants, while Degas’ work over here just looks like a blob of water color to me!” and then having someone telling me I can’t have that opinion because “It’s insulting the artist”. Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, now does it?

TL;DR: I am a big fan of the comic and even I think you’re being a dipshit.

I don’t know if I’ll ever review Penny Arcade. I mean, pretty much everything that’s been said about it has already been said, I think. And everyone’s more or less made up their minds if they like it or not. I don’t know: gag-a-day webcomics are pretty tough to review. They always boil down to whether you find something funny or not, which is incredibly subjective. Plus, the size of that archive? Daunting.

(Which, if you’re reading this, Mike or Jerry, this is a not so subtle cue for you to send me a free TPB.)

I think you miss a point about Jack.
Take the ‘Rape Arena’ — a good name for it.
What you described is one day, lets call it day one in the narrative.
What makes the comic more than just gross outs is day two,
the redemption. I feel that if you miss this, you miss an important point.
I am avoiding the temptation to say, please read it over again carefully, only because you may have suffered enough. But to ignore the merits while accurately describing the faults fails as a critical review.
I did enjoy your review, more so on second read. As O have enjoyed many things the second time, including Jack.

Jack really is not doing the sin of Wrath thing, he usually is wary of the job’s getting in the way of his possible redemption. The one thing I want to find before this comic ends is that redemption. So he is technically falling down on the job. He is closer to the virtue of Mercy in the comic. If his own sin had not been so enormous, he would not be stuck with the job.

You missed the reason he is the sin of wrath: he is the destroyer of the human race in anger.

David invented Hell and Heaven eyes.

Fnar starts the whole sequence. He is cute, and should not be where he is in Hell. This sequence sets the tone for much of the comic: A wacky morality sticking characters in odd places, but with a clear need for redemption, set in a Hellish land-and-spirtual-‘scape.

Jack is long, but many other comics are longer. Granted, K&K (15+years 18 to 30 hours read) does not drag you through Hell.

I do not think that the furrys (if there is such a thing as a furry consensus) reject Jack. Many furry comic artists demonstratively don’t. When they depict the grim reaper, it is Jack that they draw, even when the inclusion of his back story would destroy their worlds.

Hopkins wrote recently that he was considering his legacy in light of his son someday reading it, and wants to change his ways – maybe a redemption of sorts. Thus the last few story arcs have not been so hi-R/X rated.

The Rape Arena changes its nature depending who is the guest. Jack shuts it down early. You get to see the extremes that it can go to in this sequence.

“ripped off his crotchfruits”
It would seem that Jack’s influence is catching. Or would you have written that before being degraded by this comic?
That phrase does remind me of the time Jack castrated Drip.
It was done so ‘tastefully’ (like R instead of X) that I needed a later check to discover that it had been done at all.

Jack shares also with Dante for a morality depicted hell that ignores some of the conventional theology. Jack’s theology is a bit less Christian It seems Christian inspired, but not derived. I take it that Hopkins is a conservative, from the NRA reference, the Abortion Rights represented by FNAR, and other things.

For what Dave thinks of his comic and where he is going:http://www.pholph.com/strip.php?id=5&sid=3228
In general, I am giving you the end of the sequence, where the conclusions are drawn. You get to got back to the beginning of the superman and the other sequence to find the whole story.

Dude. Getting into lengthy arguments and flamewars with your commenters just makes you look like a douchebag. This is a blog. People will disagree with you. That’s why you have comments- for people to respond to the original post. Not to start a grade school debate. Instead of continually trying to have the last word, be thankful that your commenters have added content to your site and just shut up.

Thank you for the suggestion! On the contrary, I find that a lot of interaction in the comments section tends to lead to a in increase in feedback and a lot of repeat visitors to my blog. So when I can, I try to chime in to foster and moderate discussions into new directions. But thank you, again, for the feedback!

The second I started reading Jack, I was very upset with myself for enjoying it. It’s pretty objectively true that a lot of the stories are really contrived and shallow (and anvilicious)… A lot of the individual panels seem to just be excuses to draw genitalia and furries in incredibly skimpy outfits… it’s melodramatic… As I said… I can’t believe I enjoy reading it.

But I do. I don’t know why. I guess I’m a sucker for trash fiction. I think if you can get past… well, the spelling errors, the overly busy panels, the sometimes scribbled panels, the one-time characters, the very very overly anvil-dropped morals, the unnecessary genitalia and sex, the often-illogical workings of heaven, hell, and earth… well, honestly, I think there are a lot of heartwarming moments left. I swear I’m completely honest when I say I like it. I’m not sure why I like it. I can see why most people wouldn’t like it, and in fact why (for the reasons I listed), most people would really hate it.

The only thing I completely disagree with you on, author, is Fnar. He is really effing cute. :)

I used to read this comic years ago and now I’m not sure why. I suppose it’s because 1. my ability to critically judge media does need a little work and 2. I at first thought the comic had an interesting gimmick (even now, I can’t think of many comics where most of the action takes place in the afterlife).

Still, looking back with a new set of mental lenses, I’m starting to see that it is indeed a terrible comic. In fact, even when I read it, there was one nagging thought that I couldn’t get rid of: “Wouldn’t this comic be better without the anthropormorphic animals? Why do you need anthro characters to tell stories taking place in the afterlife?”

And don’t get me started on Dave Hopkins’ ED page; THAT told me a lot more about the author than I wanted to know. I mean, I used to know some furries a long time ago but they were actually nice people; not this guy though…

well I enjoy it
found the characters to be really good and entertainment, with loots of heart warming moments and some really horrific moments
I can see why some people must hate this comic put I have never seen a work of fiction like this. I suppose that one must be able to see thoung the gore and somewhat bad art to enjoy this comic

It’s been about two months since I first read this review, maybe a little bit more. When I did, I clicked on less than 10% of the links. Yet to this day, thinking about this comic while I’m eating can ruin my meal for me. Seriously. I was a horror movie buff as a kid, I’ve read almost every Stephen King book ever written, but Jack is, by several orders of magnitude, the most vile thing I’ve ever come across.

Say what you will about David’s cosmology and ethics, he is one thing you have to respect: completely, brutally, and nakedly honest about the way he feels and the way he sees the world.

Without a doubt, it is utterly repugnant to the masses, but the only way we are going to make progress in our culture (and you’re an idiot if you claim we don’t need any) is with this kind of openness.

All the review says is true: Jack is horrible in many aspects. On the other hand, I really like Jack. Comic and character. (I think my love for really atrocious movies could be an explanation.)

For me, Jack was always something like a really dark, black comedy. For the life of me I can’t seem to take all that over-the-top violence stuff seriously. And all that cristian-morality stuff Hopkins drags out of his personal mental netherworld just makes me laugh even louder.

I can’t get over that the guy’s art style hasn’t changed for ten years. You’d think he’d learn to draw at least, and adopt an art style more fitting for the serious tone of the comic, but no. Ten years later, all the characters still have buggy eyes, fly-swatted poses, and very confusing anatomy. It wouldn’t be such a problem but the whole tone of Jack plays it completely straight, like Hopkins genuinely expects us to take his comic seriously even though the characters are so silly-looking.

Also Hopkins has a very shallow understanding of things that he likes to put the spotlight on in his comics, such as homosexuality, among other things. The depictions are stereotypical and misinformed. There are also misogynistic undertones.

The worst bit comes when you realize that Drip is Hopkin’s self-insert. Hopkins considers him a very personal character, uses him often as his avatar, and actually wants people to have sympathy with him. Hopkins also has an admitted rape fetish. Since Jack is a comic that has no hand in subtlety, and much of it can be read as the accumulated personal doodles of a single man, you come to many disturbing conclusions.

Like, Hopkins was jerking off to a rape arena.

It doesn’t feel like the comic has a message at all, really. There is so much forth wall breaking, plot holes, cameos, and self-insert characters (3 of the author alone). It feels more like misguided self-aggrandizing than something that is meant to be meaningful.

Also Fnar is not an abortion argument, because he was not aborted. His mother was KILLED while pregnant with him. Killed by HOPKINS (Drip).

Holy shit, what is this abomination? I thought I’d seen all the shitty furry webcomics, but this really takes the cake. Oh my LORD is it fucked up. At least Purple Pussy didn’t try to take itself seriously.

dear santo: people have been ‘remixing’ jack to make it slightly more tolerable with a heaping dose of cynical mockery on the side. it’s at kate-comics url on tumblr. though it’s not really my site, i made it my url for ya.

Well, it wasn’t for you, I guess. To be fair, Hopkins pretty much makes every single textbook webcomic mistake in Jack, from furry characters to stagnant art design to overuse of meta-humor and meta-horror. But if you have the eyes and the stomach to look past that, you have something that I personally found intriguing. I also think that Hopkins’ sense of timing, both comedic and dramatic, is top-notch. If nothing else, I’ve yet to see any story quite like it, and many of the ways it departs from conventional storytelling are positive ones. If only he didn’t fuck up so many times on the way to telling that story.

I’m not going to claim it’s got good art, good storylines, or even that the writer is familiar with either anatomy or how objects are shaped. But, for the purposes of the comic, I think the author’s style is perfect.

See, Jack is about damnation to Hell and wanting to escape it. The title character, Jack, isn’t the hero of the story; he’s actually one of its greatest villains. The reason why the furries are screwing up the world like humans do? He killed off humanity and screwed the world over so hard that all they had to restart with was the remains of our civilization… so they did all of the stupid crap all over again. Just like we would. So, basically, everything bad that happens in the comic is technically all Jack’s fault. So what you’re dealing with is a delusional, amnesiac villain who’s just beginning to come to terms with the fact he’s the bad guy.

To add to the fun, the comic doesn’t use linear time (one of the stories in it aptly demonstrates this, which explains some of the interaction weirdness). So, it leaves the reader in the same, confused, semi-delusional state that Jack himself is in. Because, in a way, I guess you could say the reader is Jack. Which is why the comic puts so much effort into making the reader suffer.

Or it could be that I have Stockholm Syndrome from reading it and am rationalizing my own state of being mentally screwed-up by it.